ORIGINAL RESEARCH
published: 29 April 2016
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00623
Relations between Temperament,
Sensory Processing, and Motor
Coordination in 3-Year-Old Children
Atsuko Nakagawa 1*, Masune Sukigara 1 , Taishi Miyachi 2 and Akio Nakai 3
1
School of Humanities and Social Sciences, Nagoya City University, Nagoya, Japan, 2 Nagoya Western Care Center for
Disabled Children, Nagoya, Japan, 3 Department of Pediatric Neurology, Department of Pediatrics, Hyogo Children’s Sleep
and Development Medical Research Center, Kobe, Japan
Edited by:
Klaus Libertus,
University of Pittsburgh, USA
Reviewed by:
Cara Cashon,
University of Louisville, USA
Cathy Lauren Grist,
Western Carolina University, USA
*Correspondence:
Atsuko Nakagawa
[email protected]
Specialty section:
This article was submitted to
Developmental Psychology,
a section of the journal
Frontiers in Psychology
Received: 19 December 2015
Accepted: 13 April 2016
Published: 29 April 2016
Citation:
Nakagawa A, Sukigara M, Miyachi T
and Nakai A (2016) Relations between
Temperament, Sensory Processing,
and Motor Coordination in 3-Year-Old
Children. Front. Psychol. 7:623.
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00623
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org
Poor motor skills and differences in sensory processing have been noted as behavioral
markers of common neurodevelopmental disorders. A total of 171 healthy children (81
girls, 90 boys) were investigated at age 3 to examine relations between temperament,
sensory processing, and motor coordination. Using the Japanese versions of the
Children’s Behavior Questionnaire (CBQ), the Sensory Profile (SP-J), and the Little
Developmental Coordination Disorder Questionnaire (LDCDQ), this study examines an
expanded model based on Rothbart’s three-factor temperamental theory (surgency,
negative affect, effortful control) through covariance structure analysis. The results
indicate that effortful control affects both sensory processing and motor coordination.
The subscale of the LDCDQ, control during movement, is also influenced by surgency,
while temperamental negative affect and surgency each have an effect on subscales of
the SP-J.
Keywords: temperament, sensory processing, motor coordination, effortful control, 3-year-olds
INTRODUCTION
In a recent review of infant precursors of later diagnoses of Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and
Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), Johnson et al. (2014) mention differences in
sensory and motor functioning. They argue that a number of symptoms of ASD and ADHD may
result from common mechanisms pertaining to brain adaptation or compensation in the face of
early disturbances to synaptic functions. Johnson (2012) also notes that good prefrontal executive
function skills may be a common protective factor across different developmental disorders, while
poor executive function skills in infants at high risk may be linked to such diagnoses later in life.
Consistent with this proposal, they argue that poor effortful control was found in toddlers who later
received ASD and ADHD diagnoses.
The construct of effortful control emerged initially from psychometric studies using
questionnaires to investigate temperament. Researchers have consistently identified
neurodevelopmental disorders as being linked to specific temperament configurations (e.g.,
Anckarsäter et al., 2006). Temperament has been defined as a constitutionally-based set of
individual differences in reactivity and self-regulation in the domains of emotion, activity, and
attention, which are influenced over time by heredity, maturation, and experience (Rothbart
and Bates, 2006). Factor-analytic work using parent- or self-reported behavioral questionnaires
has yielded three broad factors of temperament. As distinct from the two broad factors of
surgency and negative affect, a third factor, called effortful control, emerged in a series of
1
April 2016 | Volume 7 | Article 623
Nakagawa et al.
Temperament, Sensory Processing, and Motor Coordination
behavioral questionnaires across the lifespan. The first two factors
are concerned with emotional reactivity, while the third is
related to individual differences in self-regulation and control
of reactivity. Effortful control refers to the ability to inhibit a
dominant response in order to perform a subdominant response,
detect errors, and engage in planning. It can also be regarded
as the ability to control one’s actions, emotions, and attention
(Rothbart, 2011).
Effortful control has been reported to undergo rapid
development in childhood between the ages of 2 and 7.
Developing effortful control is thought to be caused by
development in the executive attention system of the brain
(Posner and Rothbart, 1998). The brain’s three attentional
networks—alerting, orienting, and executive—are seen by these
researchers as underlying achievement. Recently, it has been
suggested that in the first year of life, control may primarily
involve the orienting attention network, including the parietal
lobe and frontal eye fields (Posner et al., 2012), the efficiency
of which develops substantially during infancy (for a review, see
Colombo, 2001). By 3–4 years of age, a frontal executive attention
network involving the anterior cingulate and basal ganglia may
take on a role of self-regulation. Temperamental effortful control
could therefore be defined as the efficiency of the neural network
involved in executive attention (Posner and Rothbart, 2000).
Although Johnson et al. (2014), regard temperamental
effortful control as a protective or compensatory factor for
neurodevelopmental disorders, relatively little attention has been
paid to relations between temperament and neural markers,
including poor motor skills and sensory differences. Gouze et al.
(2012) point out that in studying temperament as a risk factor,
researchers in the field of developmental psychopathology have
focused on the emotion and attention systems and have been
less concerned with the role of sensory regulation, a regulatory
process operating across multiple sensory domains. Applying
confirmatory factor analysis to the Child Behavior Questionnaire
(CBQ) and the Short Sensory Profile (SSP), an instrument
designed to screen for sensory processing difficulties in children,
they attempted to replicate Rothbart’s model of temperament,
in which negative affect is associated with sensory reactivity
and effortful control with sensory regulation. In particular, they
examined whether sensory regulation was subsumed into the
negative affect and effortful control factors. Their results indicate
that sensory regulation is a conceptually distinct factor from the
temperament factors of effortful control and negative affect.
However, Dunn (2001) suggested that sensory processing
mechanisms underlie the manifestations of one’s temperament
and personality. Dunn attempted to integrate the four categories
in her sensory processing model (low registration, sensitivity
to stimuli, sensory seeking, and sensory avoiding) into the
constructs of temperament or personality. She hypothesized
that the sensory processing pattern of low registration (high
neurological threshold and passive responding patterns) may
be related to temperamental effortful control, perhaps because
individuals with low registration tend to miss or take longer to
respond to events in their environment and find it easier to focus
on tasks of interest in distracting environments. She also noted
that sensory seeking is associated with surgency while sensory
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org
avoiding and sensitivity are associated with fear and negative
affect.
On the other hand, DeSantis et al. (2011) noted that relations
between infant temperament and neurobehavioral measures
have barely been explored and suggested a link between motor
competence and temperamental attentional processes in 1month-old infants through principle component analysis. In
response, Nakagawa et al. (2015) analyzed data from 1892 infants
in order to examine the above-mentioned relationship as part
of the Japan Environment and Children’s Study conducted by
the Japanese Ministry of the Environment. Their findings are
consistent with the idea that surgent tendencies should be
viewed as an accelerator toward action in infants, with inhibitory
tendencies such as fear (one of the subscales for negative affect)
and effortful control as brakes (Rothbart, 2011). Nakagawa and
Sukigara (2013) also investigated longitudinally the development
of the coordination of eye and head movement by testing 12–
36 month-old infants, with improvements in such coordination
seemingly being accompanied by increases in the efficiency of
executive attention or effortful control.
The purpose of the present study is to explore relations
between temperament and two markers of neurodevelopmental
disorder, namely poor motor skills, and sensory processing
differences in 3-year-old children. We administrated Japanese
versions of the CBQ (Rothbart et al., 2001), an instrument
developed for measuring temperament in children aged 3–7, the
Sensory Profile (Dunn, 1999), an instrument designed to assess a
child’s sensory processing patterns, and the Little Developmental
Coordination Disorder Questionnaire (LDCDQ; Rihtman et al.,
2011), an instrument designed to identify developmental
coordination disorder at ages as young as three and four. This
research was approved by the Ethics Committee of Nagoya City
University. Our hypotheses are as follows. First, temperamental
effortful control may regulate both motor coordination and
sensory processing. Second, temperamental surgency may have
an effect on motor skills. Third, some subscores in the Sensory
Profile may be associated with temperamental reactivity, namely
surgency or negative affect.
METHODS
Participants
A sample of caregivers was recruited from the community in
Nagoya, Japan’s third largest industrial metropolis, for a previous
longitudinal study that examined temperament and attention
development in infancy and early childhood. Respondents were
originally surveyed while visiting public health centers for their
infant’s routine 3-month medical examination, which is offered
free of charge by municipalities in Japan. The caregivers were
primarily female (98%), except for two males and one unknown.
All of the caregivers were Japanese. In our previous study,
we provided the questionnaires to 247 caregivers, who agreed
to participate at 4 months. With some of these participants
dropping off, questionnaires were mailed to the remaining
participants’ homes up to 24 months.
In the present study, we mailed the questionnaires to 218
caregivers who had previously stated in writing their informed
2
April 2016 | Volume 7 | Article 623
Nakagawa et al.
Temperament, Sensory Processing, and Motor Coordination
patterns (active–passive). The four quadrant scores were
constructed by adding the raw scores that correspond to each
item listed by Dunn (2006). These scores were low registration
(15 items), sensation seeking (26 items), sensory sensitivity (20
items), and sensation avoiding (29 items). A high threshold with
passive responding tendency was termed low registration, a high
threshold with active responding tendency was termed sensation
seeking, a low threshold with passive responding tendency was
termed sensory sensitivity, and a low threshold with active
responding tendency was termed sensory avoiding. Following
Dunn’s (2006) four quadrant scores, we constructed four scores
(low registration, sensation seeking, sensory sensitivity, and
sensation avoiding). That is, we summed all numerical item
responses for a given quadrant grid and divided the total by the
number of items receiving a numerical response.
consent to take part in the study. A total of 201 caregivers
responded and were offered remuneration in the form of a book
token worth U1000 (∼$8). Based on the face sheet eliciting
personal information covering the past 3 years about 187 infants
without birth problems or disabilities, only infants carried to full
term (37–42 weeks’ gestation) and of normal birth weight (over
2500 g) were eligible for the current analysis, resulting in a total
of 171 participants in the final sample. Average age was 38.91
months (SD = 1.65, Range 36–42 weeks), with 90 boys and 81
girls. The reason for leaving out premature and low birth weight
infants is that these children differ from full-term and normal
birth weight infants in terms of temperament on the one hand
and sensory processing and motor skills on the other (CaseSmith et al., 1998; van Baar et al., 2009; Moreira et al., 2014). We
needed to ensure that excluding these children would not create
a spurious relationship between our substantive variables, that is,
that the relationship between temperament on the one hand and
sensory processing and motor skills on the other was real and not
simply due to the fact that both are associated with birth status.
The Japanese Version of Little Developmental
Coordination Disorder Questionnaire (LDCDQ; Nakai
et al., 2012)
The caregivers were given 15 items describing specific motor
abilities grouped into three distinct factors: ball skills and control
during movement, handwriting and fine motor skills, and general
coordination, including speed of movement, fatigue, and the
ability to learn new motor skills. Each factor contains five items,
with parents rating their child’s performance on a 5-point Likert
scale (from 1 = not at all like your child to 5 = extremely like your
child). When answering the questions, the parents were asked to
compare the degree of coordination in their child with that of
other children of the same age and gender.
Questionnaires
The Japanese Version of Child Behavior
Questionnaire (CBQ; Kusanagi, 1993)
This 195-item parent-reported instrument is designed for
children aged 3–7. Each item describes children’s reactions to
a number of situations. Caregivers are asked to decide whether
each item is a “true” or “untrue” description of their child’s
reactions over the past 6 months on a scale from one (extremely
untrue of the child) to seven (extremely true of the child). A
total of 13 subscales yielded three broad factors: (a) surgency,
which includes activity level, high-intensity pleasure, impulsivity,
and shyness (which loads negatively); (b) negative affect, which
includes anger, discomfort, fear, sadness, and soothability (which
loads negatively); and (c) effortful control, which includes
attention focusing, inhibitory control, low-intensity pleasure, and
perceptual sensitivity.
RESULTS
Examining the Original Model
A covariance structure analysis was conducted using Amos
software (ver. 22) to clarify relations between sensory processing,
motor coordination, and temperament (surgency, negative
affect, and effortful control) in 3-year-olds. Recall that
Rothbart’s original model had four subscales loading on effortful
control (attention focusing, inhibitory control, low-intensity
pleasure, and perceptual sensitivity), four subscales loading on
surgency (activity level, high-intensity pleasure, impulsivity, and
shyness), and five subscales loading on negative affect (anger,
discomfort, fear, sadness, and soothability). With regard to motor
coordination, three subcategories of LDCDQ (control during
movement, fine motor skills, and general coordination) loaded.
These also yielded four scores, loading on sensory processing
(low registration, sensitivity to stimuli, sensation seeking, and
sensation avoiding) following Dunn’s (1999) theoretical model.
The hypothesized model (Figure 1) was designed to
investigate paths from the latent factor of temperamental
effortful control toward the latent factors of motor coordination
and sensory processing. Cross-loading from two temperamental
latent factors to temperamental subscales was not allowed.
Although the three factors of surgency, negative affect, and
effortful control are theoretically distinct (Rothbart et al., 2001),
there may be a degree of correlation between them. Regarding
sensory processing, paths from the three latent temperamental
The Japanese Version of Sensory Profile (SP-J; Ito
et al., 2013)
This original instrument (Dunn, 1999) is a 125-item
questionnaire that elicits responses to sensory events in
daily life. Caregivers report how frequently their child manifests
a given response to particular sensory events on a 5-point Likert
scale: 1 = always, 2 = frequently, 3 = occasionally, 4 = seldom,
and 5 = never. Items are designed to reflect potential difficulties
with sensory experiences, with a lower score reflecting poorer
performance. Although, the SP-J instrument reverses the score
(namely, 5 = always, 4 = frequently, 3 = occasionally, 2 =
seldom, and 1 = never), the present study follows the original
formulation. That is, lower scores reflect less efficient sensory
processing in children’s daily life. The reason why we chose
to follow the original formulation is to ensure consistency in
direction with the LDCDQ, in which higher scores reflect better
performance (see below).
Research findings yield a conceptual model based on
individual differences in neurological thresholds for stimulation
[high (habituation) – low (sensitization)] and behavior response
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org
3
April 2016 | Volume 7 | Article 623
Nakagawa et al.
Temperament, Sensory Processing, and Motor Coordination
FIGURE 1 | Path diagram of causal relations between temperament, sensory processing, and motor coordination in 3-year-olds (based on the original
three-factor temperament model). Coefficients are standardized beta values. Italic, Bold, p < 0.001.
factors were hypothesized, following Dunn (1999). Surgency was
also thought to affect control during movement, which is the
first factor in the LDCDQ and which contains a number of items
related to motor control while the child is moving or an object
is in motion (caught or thrown). As Nakagawa et al. (2015)
found, surgency may generally facilitate adequate posture and
voluntary movement in the 1 year of life. Moreover, the latent
factor of sensory processing may affect the latent factor of motor
coordination. However, the present model indicates a poor fit
2
[χ(161)
= 465.0, p < 0.01, CFI = 0.791, RMSEA = 0.105].
to sensory avoiding (Dunn, 2001), and effortful control are
negatively related to it (Rothbart et al., 2000). Another path from
surgency to low registration was provided. As low registration
is equivalent to conscientiousness (Dunn, 2001), surgency
includes the characteristic of impulsivity and should correlate
negatively with conscientiousness (Grist and McCord, 2010), a
characteristic that can “range from organized, thorough, and
responsible to careless, disorderly, and slipshod” (Rothbart, 2011,
2
p. 193). This alternative model shows an adequate fit [χ(152)
=
314.3, p < 0.01, CFI = 0.888, RMSEA = 0.079].
Examining an Alternative Model
Relations between Sensory Profile, Motor
Coordination, and Temperament
The alternative model attempts to retain the original five
latent factors by allowing for cross-loading of the variables
being measured and follows procedures used in modification
indices (Figure 2). Following Gouze et al. (2012), it consists
of three scales cross-loading on both effortful control and
negative affect (soothability, anger or frustration, and perceptual
sensitivity). Four factors loaded on both effortful control and
surgency (impulsivity, activity, inhibitory control, and attentional
focusing). These are not inconsistent with previous results
(Rothbart et al., 2001). Concerning sensory processing, the
path from effortful control to sensation avoiding was added
because neuroticism, which in adult personalities corresponds
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org
We found that effortful control, or the efficiency of the executive
attention network, may influence both the latent factors of motor
coordination and sensory processing, with b weights of 0.71
and 0.47, respectively. Effortful control also shows an effect on
the subscales of sensory processing, namely low registration and
sensation avoiding, with b weights of 0.20 and –0.21, respectively.
Moreover, the latent factor of surgency influences the LDCDQ
subscale of control during movement, with a b weight of 0.27, and
also contributes to the subscales of sensory processing, namely
sensation seeking and low registration, with b weights of –0.56
and –0.26, respectively. Similarly, the latent factor of negative
4
April 2016 | Volume 7 | Article 623
Nakagawa et al.
Temperament, Sensory Processing, and Motor Coordination
FIGURE 2 | Path diagram of causal relations between temperament, sensory processing, and motor coordination in 3-year-olds following modification
indices. Italic, Bold, p < 0.001; Italic, p < 0.01; Bold, p < 0.05.
is consistent with the view that high temperamental effortful
control, or high efficiency of the executive function, may
compensate for atypicalities in other brain systems early in life
(Johnson, 2012).
Our model shows only an adequate fit. Moreover,
unlike Rothbart’s original model, which suggests that three
temperamental factors, namely effortful control, surgency, and
negative affect are distinct, our model includes three scales
cross-loading on effortful control and negative affect and four
scales cross-loading on effortful control and surgency. However,
we were not surprised to find that the fit was not especially good
for the CBQ as this instrument was not designed with a specific
structure in mind, with the structure emerging instead in an
exploratory factor analysis. As indicated in the original paper
(Rothbart et al., 2001), the model achieved only a satisfactory fit
after researchers altered it with reference to modification indices.
In addition, in that study, there were differences between the
structures identified in the US and Chinese samples and between
those identified in 3-year-olds and older children. Through a
confirmatory factor analysis conducted in order to reproduce the
original Rothbart model for negative affect and effortful control,
Gouze et al. (2012) also reported that the model produced a poor
fit without modification indices.
Moreover, Gouze et al. (2012) found that sensory regulation
stands alone as a factor independently of negative affect and
affect has a negative effect on the subscales of sensory processing,
namely sensation avoiding and sensory sensitivity, with b weights
of –0.38 and –0.21, respectively.
To test the significance of three indirect effects, the
RMediation software (Tofighi and MacKinnon, 2011) was used to
examine 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each of the two-path
indirect effects. For the indirect effect of effortful control on low
registration via sensory processing, the 95% CI was [0.05, 0.138].
For the indirect effect of effortful control on sensation avoiding
via sensory processing, the 95% CI was [0.077, 0.209], while for
the indirect effect of effortful control on motor coordination via
sensory processing, the 95% CI was [0.016, 0.325]. The results
suggest that effortful control has significant and indirect effects
on low registration and sensation avoiding via sensory processing
as well as a significant and indirect effects on motor coordination
via sensory processing.
DISCUSSION
This study addressed relations between sensory processing,
motor coordination, and temperament early in life. Following
a covariance structure analysis, both motor coordination and
sensory processing, which have been reported to be associated
with behavioral and neural markers of neurodevelopmental
disorders, appear to be influenced by effortful control. This
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org
5
April 2016 | Volume 7 | Article 623
Nakagawa et al.
Temperament, Sensory Processing, and Motor Coordination
learning, and coordinated movement are considered products of
efficient reception and integration of incoming sensory signals
(Bundy et al., 2002).
A limitation of our study is that our sample size was somewhat
small, and greater statistical power would be provided by a larger
sample size. In addition, to be included in this study, infants had
to have been carried to full term (37–42 weeks’ gestation) and be
of normal birth weight (over 2500 g). If assessment tools used for
measuring sensory processing and motor coordination are not
designed to screen for problems but rather for typical sensory
functions, we may arrive at different results. Future investigations
should be based not only on parent-reported questionnaire
data but also on laboratory observations and naturalistic home
observations as each of these approaches has advantages as well
as disadvantages (Rothbart, 2011). Moreover, as effortful control
is thought to develop rapidly in children between the ages two
and seven, its development may well-mediate or moderate the
relationship between early signs of these atypicalities and later
signs of them, though this would require a longitudinal study.
Thus, our model remains work in progress.
Despite these limitations, our study proposes a unique
integrative model of 36-month toddlers that could incorporate
temperament, sensory processing, and motor coordination.
Recent neuroimaging findings showing that the same region of
the anterior midcingulate cortex is engaged in motor control
and pain processing (Misra and Coombes, 2015) may constitute
supporting evidence. Although these constructs have been taken
into consideration in different ways within the disciplines of
developmental psychology, occupational therapy, and behavioral
pediatrics (DeSantis et al., 2011), recent developments in
cognitive neuroscience make it possible for us to take up these
relations for examination. The results of our study should also be
examined longitudinally in order to demonstrate developmental
changes before early adolescence. Further research is required if
we are to determine the validity of our findings for understanding
child development and for suggesting significant implications for
assessment and intervention aimed at improving the moderating
factor of effortful control.
effortful control, even though established models of temperament
include sensory items within the negative affect and effortful
control factors. However, as these researchers obtained a better
fit for the model with reduced item contamination (i.e., after
elimination of items), there may be a conceptual problem, as
the authors note. On the other hand, Dunn (2001) hypothesized
a correlation between temperament and patterns of sensory
processing. In her model, sensory seeking is linked to surgency
in childhood, sensory avoiding is associated with negative affect,
and sensory sensitivity is associated with irritability and anger,
while low registration (high thresholds and passive responding
tendency) is hypothesized to be undistracted by other stimuli and
to enable task performance. Dunn speculates that there may be
a correlation between low registration and effortful control. The
present results are consistent with the integrative model of infant
behavior in DeSantis et al. (2011), which proposes two significant
relationships, one between sensory processing with low threshold
to sensory stimuli and Rothbart’s negative emotionality, and
another between sensation seeking and low registration (both
in high threshold quadrant) and Rothbart’s surgency. These
researchers thus suggest combining sensory processing data with
the temperament and personality constructs across disciplines
and then applying this knowledge in practice.
Since, we were interested in relations between effortful control
and sensory processing or motor coordination, we were not
particularly concerned with constructing a model with good
fit and reduced item contamination. Nor did we wish to alter
the original factor structures of temperament. According to the
adequate fit model shown in Figure 2, we speculate that effortful
control plays a role in regulating sensory processing and motor
coordination through each latent factor. As expected, effortful
control also directly influences sensory avoiding in a negative
direction. A low score on sensation avoiding means that the child
engages more frequently in avoiding behaviors. As some avoiding
behaviors in these items reflect modulation of movements, a
lower score on sensation avoiding may be linked to a higher score
on effortful control.
Concerning motor coordination, our results met our
expectations. The latent factor of this dimension was strongly
influenced by effortful control, and the subscale of control during
movement was strongly associated with surgency. Children high
in smiling and laughter as well as surgency may rapidly engage
in an activity. Children’s enthusiasm, shown in interest, pleasure,
and motivation to learn as well as in engagement seen as
attention and persistence may be driven by their positive and
approaching tendencies (Rothbart, 2011). A number of items
related to motor control while the child is moving or an object is
in motion, labeled control during movement, may be linked to
deriving pleasure from the action itself.
In addition, Figure 2 indicates that sensory processing makes
a contribution to motor coordination. This may be consistent
with the view that coordinated movement depends on integrating
sensory information or that a history of sensory disturbance may
be sought as a possible factor in impairing coordination (Gibbs
et al., 2007). In this view, adaptive behavior responsiveness,
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
AtN conceived and designed the study. AkN organized the
administration of questionnaires. TM contributed to data
collection. MS performed the statistical analyses and helped draft
the manuscript. TM and AkN contributed to the interpretation
of the data and helped to revise the manuscript. All authors read
and approved the final draft of the manuscript.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This study was supported by a Grant-in-Aid (No. 25285185,
16H03733) for Scientific Research from the Ministry of
Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology of Japan.
Special thanks go to all the infants and families who took part
in this project.
6
April 2016 | Volume 7 | Article 623
Nakagawa et al.
Temperament, Sensory Processing, and Motor Coordination
REFERENCES
Nakagawa, A., Miyachi, T., Sukigara, M., and Seo, T. (2015). “What is the nature
of the relationship linking posture and movement patterns to temperament in
the first year of life?,” in Poster Session presented at the Biennial Meeting of the
Society for Research in Child Development (Philadelphia, PA).
Nakagawa, A., and Sukigara, M. (2013). Variable coordination of eye and
head movements during the early development of attention: a longitudinal
study of infants aged 12–36 months. Infant Behav. Dev. 36, 517–525. doi:
10.1016/j.infbeh.2013.04.002
Nakai, A., Mitsuhashi, Y., Kawatani, M., Wilson, B. N., Rihtman, T., and Parush,
S. (2012). The development of the Japanese version of the little developmental
coordination disorder questionnaire (little DCDQ). No To Hattatsu 44, 256.
Posner, M. I., and Rothbart, M. K. (1998). Attention, self-regulation, and
consciousness. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 353, 1915–1927. doi:
10.1098/rstb.1998.0344
Posner, M. I., and Rothbart, M. K. (2000). Developing mechanisms of selfregulation. Dev. Psychopathol. 12, 427–441. doi: 10.1017/S0954579400003096
Posner, M. I., Rothbart, M. K., Sheese, B. E., and Voelker, P. (2012). Control
networks and neuromodulators of early development. Dev. Psychol. 48,
827–835. doi: 10.1037/a0025530
Rihtman, T., Wilson, B. N., and Parush, S. (2011). Development of the little
developmental coordination disorder questionnaire for preschoolers and
preliminary evidence of its psychometric properties in Israel. Res. Dev. Disabil.
32, 1378–1387. doi: 10.1016/j.ridd.2010.12.040
Rothbart, M. K. (2011). Becoming Who We Are: Temperament, Personality, and
Development. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Rothbart, M. K., Ahadi, S. A., and Evans, D. E. (2000). Temperament and
personality: origins and outcomes. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 78, 122–135. doi:
10.1037/0022-3514.78.1.122
Rothbart, M. K., Ahadi, S. A., Hershey, K. L., and Fisher, P. (2001). Investigations
of temperament at 3–7 years: the children’s behavior questionnaire. Child Dev.
72, 1394–1408. doi: 10.1111/1467-8624.00355
Rothbart, M. K., and Bates, J. E. (2006). “Temperament,” in Handbook of
Child Psychology, Vol. 3. Social, Emotional, and Personality Development, 6th
Edn., eds W. Damon, R. Lerner, and N. Eisenberg (New York, NY: Wiley),
99–166.
Tofighi, D., and MacKinnon, D. P. (2011). RMediation: an R-package for
mediation analysis confidence intervals. Behav. Res. Methods 43, 692–700. doi:
10.3758/s13428-011-0076-x
van Baar, A. L., Vermaas, J., Knots, E., de Kleine, M. J., and Soons, P. (2009).
Functioning at school age of moderately preterm children born at 32 to 36
weeks’ gestational age. Pediatrics 124, 251–257. doi: 10.1542/peds.2008-2315
Anckarsäter, H., Stahlberg, O., Larson, T., Hakansson, C., Jutblad, S. B., Niklasson,
L., et al. (2006). The impact of ADHD and autism spectrum disorders on
temperament, character, and personality development. Am. J. Psychiatry 163,
1239–1244. doi: 10.1176/ajp.2006.163.7.1239
Bundy, A. C., Lane, S. J., and Fisher, A. G. (2002). Sensory Integration: Theory and
Practice. Philadelphia, PA: Davis.
Case-Smith, J, Butcher, L., and Reed, D. (1998). Parents’ report of sensory
responsiveness and temperament in preterm infants. Am. J. Occup. Ther. 52,
547–555. doi: 10.5014/ajot.52.7.547
Colombo, J. (2001). The development of visual attention in infancy. Ann. Rev.
Psychol. 52, 337–367. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.337
DeSantis, A., Harkins, D., Tronick, E., Kaplan, E., and Beeghly, M. (2011).
Exploring an integrative model of infant behavior: what is the relationship
among temperament, sensory processing, and neurobehavioral measures.
Infant Behav. Dev. 34, 280–292. doi: 10.1016/j.infbeh.2011.01.003
Dunn, W. (1999). The Sensory Profile: User’s Manual. San Antonio, TX:
Psychological Corporation.
Dunn, W. (2001). The sensations of everyday life: empirical, theoretical,
and pragmatic considerations. Am. J. Occup. Ther. 55, 608–620. doi:
10.5014/ajot.55.6.608
Dunn, W. (2006). Sensory Profile Supplement: User’s Manual. San Antonio, TX:
Harcourt Assessment Inc.
Gibbs, J., Appleton, J., and Appleton, R. (2007). Dyspraxia or developmental
coordination disorder? Unraveling the enigma. Arch. Dis. Child. 92, 534–539.
doi: 10.1136/adc.2005.088054
Gouze, K. R., Lavigne, J. V., Hopkins, J., Bryant, F. B., and Lebailly, S. A. (2012).
The relationship between temperamental negative affect, effortful control, and
sensory regulation: a new look. Infant Ment. Health J. 33, 620–632. doi:
10.1002/imhj.21363
Grist, C. L., and McCord, D. M. (2010). Individual differences in preschool
children: temperament or personality? Infant Child Dev. 19, 264–274. doi:
10.1002/icd.663
Ito, H., Hirashima, T., Hagiwara, T., Iwanaga, R., Tani, I, Yikihiro, R., et al. (2013).
Standardization of the Japanese version of the sensory profile: reliability and
norms based on a community sample. Clin. Psychiatry 55, 537–548.
Johnson, M. H. (2012). Executive function and developmental disorders: the
flip side of the coin. Trends Cogn. Sci. (Regul. Ed.) 16, 454–457. doi:
10.1016/j.tics.2012.07.001
Johnson, M. H., Gliga, T., Jones, E., and Charman, T. (2014). Annual research
review: infant development, autism, and ADHD: early pathways to emerging
disorders. J. Child. Psychol. Psychiatry 56, 228–247. doi: 10.1111/jcpp.12328
Kusanagi, E. (1993). A psychometric examination of the Children’s behavior
questionnaire. Ann. Rep. Res. Clin. Center Child Dev. 15, 25–33.
Misra, G., and Coombes, S. A. (2015). Neuroimaging evidence of motor control
and pain processing in the human midcingulate cortex. Cereb. Cortex 25,
1906–1919. doi: 10.1093/cercor/bhu001
Moreira, R. S., Magalhães, L. C., and Alves, C. R. (2014). Effect of preterm
birth on motor development, behavior, and school performance of school-age
children: a systematic review. J. Pediatr. 90, 119–134. doi: 10.1016/j.jped.2013.
05.010
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org
Conflict of Interest Statement: The authors declare that the research was
conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could
be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Copyright © 2016 Nakagawa, Sukigara, Miyachi and Nakai. This is an open-access
article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC
BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the
original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this
journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution
or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
7
April 2016 | Volume 7 | Article 623